538 NO IMPLIED WARRANTY THAT MEAT FIT FOR FOOD, 



that in the corn trade the words " seed barley " had acquired a particu- 

 lar meaning, though there was evidence that it had in the locality 

 such a meaning. It was held that there was no evidence of a war- 

 ranty, nor of a contract for anything else than what the words naturally 

 imported, viz., barley seed which would grow ; and such barley having 

 been delivered, that there was no cause of action. The rule to set aside 

 the nonsuit was discharged. And j^er Martin B. : " There was no war- 

 ranty. A warranty is an absolute engagement that the article sold is of 

 a particular quality or kind, and will answer a particular purpose. Here 

 there was a mere expression of opinion or belief. The defendant had 

 negotiated for a quantity of barley, which he believed to be ' seed 

 barley,' and sold, as he had bought, by sample ; saying that he believed 

 it to be seed barley, but did not know what sort it was. Assuming, 

 even, that the words ' seed barley ' meant what the plaintiff maintains, 

 still, if it was understood that there was a purchase of the article which 

 was shown, it would be the same if any other name had been given to 

 it. If we could see that ' seed barley ' was an article well known and 

 commonly sold as such, then it might be that the sale of barley by that 

 name might import a warranty. But it was not so here. And as to 

 the damage, even if there was a breach of warranty, it would only be 

 nominal, for the plaintiff brought his loss upon himself by warranting 

 the barley as 'Chevalier' or a certain particular quality." {Carier v. 



Cricli:.) 



No implied warranty that meat fit for food. — There is no implied 

 warranty that an article exposed for sale as human food is fit for that 

 purpose ; and if a meat salesman in Newgate market exposes a carcase 

 for sale which, in consequence of some latent defect of which he is 

 ir^norant, is mifit for human food, he is not liable to a penalty under 

 section 52 of 14& 15 Vict. c. 91 for selling it, nor, in the absence of 

 any fraud on his part, will an action on the case for deceit lie against 

 him ; nor will an action to recover the price lie by a purchaser, who, 

 Ijclievinf it to be fit for human food, has purchased it to sell to retail 

 customers. And par Curiam : " The undoubted general law is that, in 

 the absence of all fraud, if a specific article is sold, the buyer having an 

 opportunity to examine it and selecting it, the rule of Caveat emptor 

 applies, {Chaivler v. Hopldns, 4 M. & W. 399, 8 L. J. (N. S.) Ex. 14, 

 Farldmon v. Lee, 2 East 314, and Morleij v. Aitmhorough, 3 Ex. 500, 

 and 18 L. J. (N. S.) Ex. 148), and the plaintiff has to establish that in 

 the case of a salesman dealing with a retail buyer there is an exception 

 to the general rule, and that there is an imi)lied warranty that the meat 

 is fit for the purpose for which probably it is bought. None of the 

 cases cited decide this case, although in JhiniVy v. Bollelt (IG ]\I. & W. 



